JUDGEMENT - A.S.V. Moorthy, J. :---By this petition the petitioner who is the wife of the detenue under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks to impugn the order of detention dated 24th January 1996 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai against the detenue, Sarvar Afsar Khan. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, respondent No. 2 herein in exercise of his powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section (3) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) read with Government Order, Home Department (Special) No. DDS. 1395/1/SPL-3(B) dated the 19th November, 1995, passed the detention order bearing No. D.O. No. 1/PCB/BL/Zone-X/1996 dated 24th January 1996, detaining the detenue with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 3.At the outset it may be mentioned that for the purpose of considering and deciding the point that has been raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, it is unnecessary to refer to the grounds of detention. Accordingly we do not propose to do so. 4.The only point that has been argued before us by the Counsel for the petitioner is as under :- The detenue submitted five copies of his representation against the order of detention to the Jailor, Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik on 6-2-1996 addressed to the "Hon'ble Advisory Board" and out of the five copies, the jail authorities sent three copies to the Advisory board as required and retained remaining two copies with them. In fact out of the remaining two copies the jail authorities ought to have sent one copy (of his representation) to the State Government, retaining one for themselves and in the circumstances of this case they have failed to discharge the said obligation. In this context it has to be noticed that para 8 of the grounds of detention states that it is open to the detenue to make a representation to the State Government if he wishes so. Or in other words the failure on the part of the jail authorities to send a copy of the representation to the State Government, has resulted in grave prejudice to the detenue, in that there has been a long delay in considering and disposing off the representation and consequently violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Or in other words the failure on the part of the jail authorities to send a copy of the representation to the State Government, has resulted in grave prejudice to the detenue, in that there has been a long delay in considering and disposing off the representation and consequently violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 5.In support of the above contention the Counsel for the petitioner would refer to a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1993 Supp(1) S.C.C. 392 (Jai Prakash v. District Magistrate, Bulandshahar)1, and submit that in almost similar circumstances in that case the Supreme Court held that there was an obligation on the part of the Superintendent of Jail to send one copy of the representation to the Government. According to him in the said reported case the detenue furnished to the jail authorities 9 copies of the representation and that however the jail authorities did not send a copy of the representation to the Central Government and that in those circumstances, the Supreme Court pointed out that when the detenue gave sufficient number of copies of his representation and left it to the jail authorities to forward the same to authorities as specified in the grounds of detention Jail Superintendent was legally bound to send one copy to Central Government also. On the same principle, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the instant case, the jail authorities ought to have sent one copy of the representation to the State Government. 6.The second decision relied on by the Counsel for the petitioner is that of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Shri Ashok Babu Jadhav v. R.H. Mendonca ors.)2, (Criminal Writ Petition No. 1120 of 1995). According to the Counsel for the petitioner in that case when sufficient number of copies were given to jail authorities, the jail authorities forwarded one copy of the representation to the State Government and when the State Government failed to consider and dispose off the said representation without any delay, this Court allowed the petition holding that it is violative of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India which guarantees a person who is preventively detained to have his representation decided by the detaining authority promptly and without any delay. 7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. 7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Patil appearing for the respondents- State of Maharashtra, would submit as follows :- The detenue, true, made a representation and submitted 5 copies of the same to the jail authorities. The said representation was addressed only to "the Hon'ble Advisory Board". No covering letter was given by the detenue along with the said five copies making any request. Out of the said five copies the jail authorities despatched three copies to the Advisory Board as required, keeping the remaining two copies with them. Inasmuch as the representation was addressed only to the Advisory Board and that no further request was made by the detenue the jail authorities rightly despatched three copies to the Advisory Board and to none else. There is no rule, direction or guidelines issued to the jail authorities that in such circumstances they themselves should send one copy to the State Government. There is no obligation on the part of jail authorities to do so and that being so it cannot be said that the jail authorities have failed to discharge their obligation. 8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor referring to the decision of the Apex Court relied on by the Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the facts in that case are entirely different and the ruling in that case would have no application to the case on hand. The Counsel further pointed out that the detention in the said case was under National Security Act, 1980 and that representation could be made both to the Central Government and to the State Government. The representation sent by the detenue was neither addressed to the State Government nor to the Central Government but only mentioned "Home Secretary" (without any reference whether it was addressed to Home Secretary, State Government or Home Secretary to Central Government) and the jail authorities in that case had sent one copy of the representation to the State Government and did not send a copy to Central Government and only in those circumstances, in the facts and circumstances of that particular case, the Supreme Court held that there was an obligation on the jail authorities to send one copy of the representation to the Central Government which the said authorities did not discharge. 9.With regard to the decision in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1120 of 1995 relied on by the Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that the same would not apply to this case because it was a case where the jail authorities suo motu forwarded one copy of representation to the State Government and when that representation was not considered by the State Government without any delay this Court allowed the petition. Or in other words, according to him, this Court has not ruled that there is an obligation on the part of the jail authorities to send one copy of representation to the State Government when the same is not addressed to the State Government and when no such request is made by the detenue to the jail authorities to forward one copy to the State Government. 10.We have given our anxious consideration in this matter and we are of the considered view that there are no merits in the writ petition. It is an admitted fact that the detenue gave representation specifically addressed only to the Advisory Board and furnished five copies of the same to the concerned Jailor. The Jailor, in turn forwarded three copies to the Advisory Board as required retaining two copies with himself. It is not the case of the detenue that he made a request to the Jailor requesting him to send one copy of the representation to the State Government. The Counsel for the petitioner has not placed before us any rule, direction or instructions to the Jailor issued by any authority casting an obligation on the part of the jailor to forward one copy in such circumstances to the State Government. 11.The Counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on two decisions referred supra in support of his contention. Let us first consider the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1993 Supp (1) S.C.C. 392 Jai Prakash v. District Magistrate, Bulandshahar ors. At the outset it may be stated that the said decision can not in any way advance the case of the detenue. Referring to the facts of that case it could be seen that in that case the order of detention was passed under National Security Act, 1980. The detenue in the said case submitted the representation against his detention through the jail authorities and the said representation was addressed to "The Home Secretary". Referring to the facts of that case it could be seen that in that case the order of detention was passed under National Security Act, 1980. The detenue in the said case submitted the representation against his detention through the jail authorities and the said representation was addressed to "The Home Secretary". without indicating whether of State Government or of Central Government. The order of detention served on the detenue specifically informed the detenue that he has right to make representation to the State Government and also to the Central Government and further in that case it was not disputed that the detenue gave 9 copies of the representation to the Superintendent of Jailor for onward submission to the authorities. In those circumstances the Apex Court held that when the detenue gave sufficient number of copies of his representation and left it to the Jailor to forward the same to the authorities as specified in the grounds of detention, Jail Superintendent was legally bound to send one copy to Central Government also. Only in those circumstances the Supreme Court observed that : "We are of the view that the Superintendent Jail, in the circumstances of this case. (emphasis supplied) was under an obligation to send one copy of the representation to the Central Government." It may also be pointed out that the Apex Court made it clear in more than one place that it was inclined to allow the said writ petition on the facts of that case. Or in other words, it cannot be said that the ruling of the Apex Court is to the effect that there is an obligation on the part of the Jailor to forward a copy of the representation to all the authorities concerned whenever he is furnished with sufficient number of copies, irrespective of the fact whether the said representation is addressed to all the authorities and that too in the absence of any request in writing to that effect by the detenue. 12.The second ruling relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner referred to supra cannot also in our opinion support his contention. The reading of the said judgment would show that the facts are different in that case. In that case as in the present one, the representation was addressed to the Advisory Board and copies handed over to the Jailor. The reading of the said judgment would show that the facts are different in that case. In that case as in the present one, the representation was addressed to the Advisory Board and copies handed over to the Jailor. The jail authorities without any request from the detenue after forwarding required number of copies to the Advisory Board, forwarded one copy to the State Government and another copy to the Central Government. In such a situation this Court held that the State Government having received the representation ought to have disposed off the same without any delay. The Division Bench in that case has not ruled that there is an obligation on the part of the Jailor to send one copy to the State Government when the same is addressed only to the Advisory Board even without request from the detenue. 13.For the reasons stated supra we are of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that the Jailor has failed to discharge any obligation cast upon him which has resulted in grave prejudice to the detenue and that the same is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India which guarantees a person who is preventively detained to have his representation decided by the authority promptly and without any delay. 14.Consequently there is no merit in the case. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. *****